ORDER :

N.TUKARAMJI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (CrPC) seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 424 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 415, 418 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the aforesaid Calendar Case.

3. Heard Mr. Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr. K. Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-12 guntas, situated at Mudireddypally Hamlet, Rajapur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 allegedly represented himself as being authorised to deal with the property belonging to petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 and offered to sell the same to respondent No.2/complainant. Pursuant thereto, an agreement of sale dated 24.06.2019 was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,71,40,000/-, and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the complainant towards advance sale consideration. It is alleged that the petitioners/Accused had agreed to conduct a survey and demarcate the boundaries of the subject property and to obtain a Non-FTL Certificate within a period of two months. However, according to the complainant, despite repeated requests, the petitioners failed to perform the said obligations. The complainant asserts that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the transaction. A legal notice was accordingly issued calling upon the petitioners to comply with the terms of the agreement. However, the petitioners allegedly failed to do so. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2, in her reply, denied having executed the agreement of sale.

4.2. It is further alleged that the petitioners, with a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant and cause wrongful loss to him, subsequently alienated the subject property in favour of a third party without informing the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant lodged a police report on 22.08.2022. As the police allegedly failed to take any action thereon, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate by way of a private complaint. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, a crime came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet. The learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance of the alleged offences and registered the Calendar Case. Aggrieved by the continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present criminal petition seeking quashment of the proceedings.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute arises entirely out of the agreement of sale dated 24.06.2019 and is essentially civil and contractual in nature. It is contended that, contrary to the allegations of the complainant, the survey and demarcation of the subject property had been completed, but the complainant failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period. According to the petitioners, the alleged non-performance of contractual obligations, by itself, cannot be given a criminal colour in the absence of the necessary ingredients of a criminal offence. It is further submitted that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only as a means of exerting pressure upon the petitioners in connection with a contractual dispute. Learned counsel points out that respondent No.2/complainant and respondent No.3 have already instituted O.S. No.204 of 2023 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, see